TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 141 of the Act - While dealing with the vicarious liability of the Directors of the company, the Apex Court in SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [ 2015 (9) TMI 1339 - SUPREME COURT] is of the view that the principle which is laid down is to the effect that the criminal intent of the alter ego of the company, that is the personal group of persons that guide the business of the company, would be imputed to the company/corporation. The averments made in paragraph No.5 of the complaint are not sufficient to fasten the liability against the petitioner and in the absence of such details, the complaint against the petitioner, who is arrayed as A2, for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onths worth ₹ 8,50,000/- as per the rates. The accused issued cheque bearing No.929605 dated 01.11.2010 drawn on Axis Bank, Hyderabad, for ₹ 2,00,000/- towards work of September, 2010 and another cheque bearing No.929620 dated 18.12.2010 drawn on the same Bank for ₹ 2,50,000/-towards the work of October, 2010. When the complainant presented those cheques for collection through HDFC Bank, Mahabubnagar Branch, they were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds and the same was informed to the accused. Thereafter, A2 transferred a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/-from his account No.10141560000576 to the Account No.10141070007111 of the complainant at HDFC Bank, Mahabubnagar on 08.02.2011 and 10.02.2011. The accused also assured the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tails as to how the petitioner is authorized in day-to-day affairs of the company, the complaint against the petitioner is not maintainable in view of Section 141 of the Act, since vicarious liability cannot be fastened to the Directors of the company and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the said grounds. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the second respondent Sri N. Naveen Kumar, would draw the attention of this Court to the allegations made in paragraph No.5 of the complaint to consider prima facie that the petitioner/A2 is also participating in day-to-day affairs of the company as he transferred a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- from his account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. 17. Though the petitioner is one of the Directors of the company, merely because he has transferred a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- from his account to the account of the complainant, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner is actively participating in day-to-day affairs of the business of company. Mere payment by the petitioner being one of the Directors is not sufficient to fasten liability under Section 141 of the Act. While dealing with the vicarious liability of the Directors of the company, the Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2016(4) SCC 609 is of the view that the principle which is laid down is to the effect that the criminal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, I am of the considered view that the averments made in paragraph No.5 of the complaint are not sufficient to fasten the liability against the petitioner and in the absence of such details, the complaint against the petitioner, who is arrayed as A2, for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and under Section 420 IPC is not maintainable and consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.751 of 2012 are liable to be quashed. 19. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.751 of 2012 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases under Prohibition and Excise Act, Mahabubnagar, are quashed against the petitioner/A2. However, the trial Court is directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
